Posted 3 years ago on Jan. 18, 2013, 9:03 a.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to inside Washington gossip, Congress and the president are going to do exactly what voters elected them to do; they are going to cut Social Security by 3 percent. You don't remember anyone running on that platform? Yeah, well, they probably forgot to mention it.

The bottom line is that President Obama and many leading Democrats are prepared to give seniors a larger hit to their income than they gave to the over $250,000 crowd. And the whole reason it is necessary is that the Wall Street types who wrecked the economy say so. Is everybody happy?

72 Comments

"...And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it ALL from ya sooner or later because they Own this Fuckin place. It's a Big Club...And you Ain't In It!" -George Carlin

democrats cut it with republicans in the 90's... why would they stop now?

how many years have to go by with warrantless wire taps, no habeas corpus, all while giving trillions to banks and corporations... how many years have to go by before people realize republicans and democrats have formed a Wall Street government?

I keep saying it but so many people refuse to believe it (this is not aimed at you GirlFriday)... the people funded by Wall Street are not going to save you from Wall Street.

That is funny. I can't remember where I was at online last night but I came across something that suggested that the American people were more in favor of socialism. I had started to post it but didn't because the information came from a poll and it did not list the questions or any of that.

DKAtoday doesn't know what he's talking about. Wealthy subsidies have NOTHING to do with social security and SSDI going broke. When you set up a system where you have less and less workers for every retiree, eventually the math breaks down, because the GD thing is a ponzi scheme. You could take every penny from the rich and not come close to solving the disaster that SS, SS disability, medicare, and medicaid are.

There used to be 16 workers for every retiree. Now there are about 2.5.

The math is breaking down and it's no corporations fault. It's do-gooder democrats like FDR and LBJ who couldn't understand math to save their lives.

It also is bizarre that Social Security would even be considered in the context of the deficit. In law and in practice it is a separate program, financed by its own designated stream of revenue. Cutting benefits as part of a deficit deal means that we will be making cuts to Social Security with zero quid pro quo in the form of increased revenue. That hardly makes sense if the point is to protect the program.

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Many people who are eligible for SSI may also be entitled to receive Social Security benefits. In fact, the application for SSI is also an application for Social Security benefits. However, SSI and Social Security are different in many ways.

Unlike Social Security benefits, SSI benefits are not based on your prior work or a family member's prior work. Social Security benefits may be paid to you and certain members of your family if you are “insured” meaning you worked long enough and paid Social Security taxes.

SSI is financed by general funds of the U.S. Treasury--personal income taxes, corporate and other taxes. Social Security taxes withheld under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) or the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) do not fund the SSI program.

In most States, SSI beneficiaries also can get medical assistance (Medicaid) to pay for hospital stays, doctor bills, prescription drugs, and other health costs.
Most States also provide a supplemental payment to certain SSI beneficiaries.
SSI beneficiaries may also be eligible for food assistance in every State except California. In some States, an application for SSI benefits also serves as an application for food assistance.
SSI benefits are paid on the first of the month.
To get SSI, you must be disabled, blind, or at least 65 years old and have "limited" income and resources.
In addition, to get SSI, you must:
––be a resident of the United States, and
––not be absent from the country for a full calendar month or more or for 30 consecutive days or more; and
––be either a U.S. citizen or national, or in one of certain
categories of eligible non–citizens.

Since military wages were not covered employment until 1957, spending several years in the military would result in reduced Social Security benefits. Even after military service became a form of covered employment, the low cash wages paid to servicemen and women meant that military service was also a financial sacrifice. As a special benefit for members of the armed forces the Congress decided to grant special non-contributory wage credits for military service before 1957 and special deemed military wage credits to boost the amounts of credited contributions for service after 1956. These credits were paid out of general revenues as a subsidy to military personnel. So, each year since 1966 the Social Security Trust Funds have in fact received some relatively small transfers from the general revenues as bonuses for military personnel.

In 1965-66 Congress also identified another "disadvantaged" group: elderly individuals (age 72 before 1971) who had not been able to work long enough under Social Security to become insured for a benefit. People in this group were granted special Social Security benefits paid for entirely by the general revenues of the Treasury. These were known as Special Age 72, or Prouty, benefits. Over time, of course, these beneficiaries will disappear as Father Time claims members of the group.

Most of them have already woken up. They were awake when dumps with toxic waste were placed near those neighborhoods with the poorest populations. They were awake when they realized that the elderly where living on the streets because the rents skyrocketed. They were awake when the elderly were buying medication from Canada and going to Mexico to obtain it.

This is intentional. And again, I ask........when do we begin to call this, looking at our homeless population and at the local ordinances not to feed them, etc. and so on............genocide?

Well DK, we may disagree on guns, but completely agree on this. The government is corrupt and owned by special interests. My wife and are on SS, but have other income so a 3% cut won’t hurt us, but millions of other seniors aren’t as lucky. What will probably happen if the cuts occur is a lot of old folks will go on welfare.

You know, I don't know how many people missed this but years ago when it started becoming public knowledge that a lot of poor people had to resort to eating dog and cat food to survive, what did TPTB do about it? RAISED THE PRICE OF DOG AND CAT FOOD!!!!!

Sorry for yelling. I usually don't do that, but when that happened I practically went ballistic.

Ah, you did catch that about the raise in prices then? I'll bet a lot of people didn't. And I agree, a public flogging would be way too kind. I'm kind of fond of the visual of 'head's on pikes on the road into town' like in days of yore. THAT"S the kind of thing that get's peoples attention.

"People" with a question mark? Yeah, I'm thinking maybe we need a different spelling for their ilk to separate them from the rest of us. Maybe 'peeple,' because that's about all they're good for, pissing on. Like they've been doing to us for far too long.